Showing posts with label Truth values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truth values. Show all posts

Monday, August 18, 2014

Science: Logical Fallacy; Correlation equals Causation


Example of a positive correlation 

Logical fallacies are rampant in today’s media and politics. How many times have you heard "Study Finds that Coffee Improves Brain Function" or "Cat Owners are Friendlier than Dog Owners." on the news? This is a blatant example of how the media tends to oversimplify things for public perception. Assuming because two things happened simultaneously is not enough evidence to suggest that one caused the other.

What is a Correlational Relationship?

A correlational relationship states that two things coincide with each other. As one increases the other tends to increases. When two variables are moving in the same direction we call it a positive correlation. When two variables are moving in opposite directions we call it a negative correlation. Correlations do not imply that one variable will cause the other.

Moreover, correlational relationships tend to have other variables at play. Such as the correlation with African Americans and the Crime Rate. There are socioeconomic factors, statistical bias factors, racial profiling factors at play that can affect this statement.

Examples

Studies have shown that intelligent people tend to listen to classical music

This does not translate to “listening to classic music will make you more intelligent”, and being intelligent does not mean you have to like classical music. Just that a lot of intelligent people just so happen to listen to classical music. It should be noted that a large amount of intelligent people are also born in the wealthy cultures which do tend to favor classical music. Hence we see a third variable at play.

“Rich people tend to be more educated.”

This does not imply you have to be rich to be educated. Only that rich people tend to be more educated mostly because of socioeconomic factors. They can afford several opportunities to benefit the education of their children. Not all rich people are educated, not all poor people are uneducated

“People with larger shoe sizes tend to have better reading ability”

You don’t have to be a size 14 to comprehend what you are reading. In fact you can have a large shoe size and be downright illiterate. This example just shows that there is a third variable at play which we might not know about.

What is a Causal Relationship?

A causal relationship on the hand does mean that one variable will cause the other. An important main difference from correlation relationships that one should remember is that causal relationships are usually a one way street; Because it is a cause and effect relationship.

Examples

“When water is heated high enough, it will eventually boil.”

A rather obvious one. When water is heated its molecules will move faster and its temperature will rise. Eventually with enough heat it will boil.

“School was canceled in several high schools across the state, so less kids went to school.”

Another rather obvious one. 

“As the wind speed increases, the sail boat moves faster.”

The sail boat operates on wind so if the wind speed were to increase it would move faster. This does not imply because a sailboat moves faster the wind MUST have increased speed. This is a perfect example of a causal relationship.

Logical Fallacy

Now we can easily see why correlation equals causation is a fallacy.

Fallacy

Premise 1 - A and B are both variables
Premise 2 - A occurs in correlation with B
Conclusion - Therefore A and B must be causally related

Now that we know what a causal relationship and what a correlational relationship is, we can see that the conclusion is blatantly false. Both A and B have a correlational relationship that can be easily said. But there is not enough evidence to suggest that they are causally related. Correlation can be a hint that two variables may but that’s about it.






References
Causation and Correlation. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2014, from http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt9_2.html
An Introduction to Psychology Research Methods. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2014, from http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_5.htm
An Introduction to Psychology Research Methods. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2014, from http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_4.htm
STATS: We Check Out the Numbers Behind the News. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2014, from http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm
Types of Relationships. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2014, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/relation.php

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Philosopy: Truth

What is Truth?

    Truth can be referred to as knowledge that is in accordance with reality. The simplicity of truth seems inherent, but when one looks closely at the concept, it becomes hard to imagine that there is one single absolute truth in everything. Even philosophers have struggled with this concept. Let's look at some of the properties of an absolute truth.

- Fixed
- Invariable
- Unable to alter

    While this is able to describe some concepts, it fails to describe others. The only logical assumption that we can therefore make is that there is another form of truth. After studying hermetic and Tibetan philosophy I have realized that there are two types of truth. An absolute truth which will always remain true, and a circumstantial truth which is dependent upon the situation.

An absolute truth is something that has existed forever and will continue to exist forever while a circumstantial truth will change dependent upon the circumstances. They may be true today and will be false tomorrow. They could be true for one group of people and untrue for others. So let's come up with two operational definitions for truth.

Absolute Truth is a piece of knowledge or fact which is fixed and invariable. It's truth value has and always will be true. They are the most objective pieces of information.

Circumstantial Truth is a piece of knowledge or fact which is not fixed and is variable. It's truth value is dependent upon the factors that comprise it. Statistics are a perfect example of circumstantial truths.


Absolute Truth Examples

1. I was given a name
      That will always be true because indeed I was given a name. There is nothing that will change the fact at all that I was given a name.
2. The sun is a star
     It is true because nothing will likely change the fact that the sun is a star.
3. I like the color red now
    This is true because at a certain point in time I liked the color red. Whether this changes is irrelevant. The fact will always remain that at that specific point in time that I liked the color red.

Circumstantial Truth Examples 
1. I like the color red
     This is circumstantial because of it's lack of specificity. I may not always like the color red in the future
2. Asians have higher IQ
     This is circumstantial because this isn't true for every individual Asian. Some Asians have extremely low IQ especially in the poorer areas.


Concepts Based upon Absolute and Circumstantial Truths

ABSOLUTE
- Mathematical principles(especially the concept of constants)
- Polarities(positive & negative, light and dark, hot and cold)


CIRCUMSTANTIAL
- Statistics
- Estimations
- Political Morality



Thursday, August 14, 2014

Appeal to Nature Fallacy: Is Homosexuality Natural?


     In regards to arguments bought up over homosexuality there seems to be quite a common question that pops up. "Is homosexuality natural." At first this seems like a very important aspect, however if you look at this objectively whether homosexuality is natural or not has nothing to do with anything. It is an appeal to nature fallacy that needs to be forgotten.

     Labeling something natural or unnatural seems to cause people to change their mindsets about something. Natural products are seen as good, which is why advertisers jump on promoting their "All-natural" products(which most of the time isn't the case anyway). Likewise anything that is unnatural is demonized. Without wasting further time let us examine this in detail.


The fallacy seems to go like this (For the purpose of making this easy to understand, let X be represented by homosexuality.)


Premise 1 - X is unnatural

Premise 2 - Unnatural things are bad
Conclusion - X is bad

This seems to sound rational, However, we can immediately see that this is illogical. Look at the second premise very closely. What proof is there that anything unnatural is bad? In fact the very definition is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal." Nowhere does the definition suggest that things that are unnatural are bad. In fact, to better demonstrate to you why premise 2 is unfounded, I will use the same logic in other issues


Let X represent medicine, condoms, technology, birth control, and clothing.


Premise 1 - X is unnatural

Premise 2 - Unnatural things are bad
Conclusion - X is bad

The same logic applies. However technology, medicine, condoms, birth control, clothing, etc. are thought to be as beneficial or "good" for the most part. So therefore this unnatural argument makes no sense, and it can't promote further discussion. I will point out the next flaw in this argument. If unnatural things are considered to be bad, then it should inversely mean that anything natural should be considered good


Let X represent flesh-eating bacteria, viruses, maladies, poisonous animals, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. We can then apply the following logic


Premise 1 - X is natural

Premise 2 - Natural things are good
Conclusion - X is good

However all of these are thought of as bad or harmful to humans. So therefore this logic is flawed. Something being natural does not necessitate that it is good. 


Natural =/= Good

Unnatural =/= Bad

So the next time you notice an appeal to nature fallacy be sure to point it. It is a fallacy that can add nothing to the discussion and has no logical basis.